Curious Hair wrote:
political talk is just sports talk for people who think they capital-letter Care (baldly ganked this from sinicalypse), and so it's only half the departure he thinks it is.
take it and run with it, my child (strictly in terms of messageboard/related posting. i can't be on the hook for child support here) --- seriously, if you're ever to take a proverbial step back from the phenomenon that is having a box in your room that lights up and takes the place of activity, you'll realize that politics is just a rather thorough dog and pony show whose purpose is to convince you, me, and the schmuck living next door to you that you have some sort of "a say" in how everything around you operates.
whenever you see the party CONventions for the presidental election you're subject to a barrage of images of the "hardcore" people, usually all button-toting and all going out of their way to show their allegiance to their tribe/party of choice, which is exactly what sports have (rather brilliantly, i might add) become over the last ~50 years (with particular emphasis on the last 20-30 years). this kind of stuff doesn't happen by accident, and it's amazing to see that sports crowds have gone from a group of people all wearing suits (and/or whatever the pervasive standard in fashion was at the time) to being all glammed up in officially-licensed-team-gear. it's truly pathetic from a philosophical sense if you stop and think about it (INSERT LOHO/HERB/ETC COSIGNED ARGUMENT ABOUT "GROWN-ASS-MEN" WEARING JERSEYS OF ANOTHER MAN)
but then again, that's kind of the point. when one of these trilateral bilderberg councils on foreign affairs thinktanks with a keen eye to social engineering met in the late 1800s, the idea was to build colosseums all over the world and encourage local/regional tribalism based around arbitrary corporate entities in the form of sports teams. the general idea was that as mass-production/distrobution/consumption rose up and eradicated the need for men to be hunters/gathers/providers en masse (in terms of tangible acquisition of food/goods, as obviously this need to provide was shifted to a strictly financial arena, which was greeted with the federal reserve in america circa 1913 or whatever and so on and so forth) they saw a need for something to step up and provide the men a sense of identity and outlet in order to stymie their natural tendencies that were about to be replaced by a more sedentary lifestyle.
you know, since you didn't have to grow/hunt your own food, you're going to need something to do every day. take that desire to hunt/kill/grow/create and channel it into arbitrary games which are promoted via the media and played in said colosseums, and hey, as the 1900s came and rolled onwards the birth of massmedia came to be and next thing you know the 80s show up hey its michael jordan and by the end of the 90s everyone wants to play dress up as their favorite athletes and show off something as arbitrary as their levels of "fandom" in order to have the perception of elevated standing in the fiefdom/tribe/fandom/etc.
the same thing applies to politics. when i walk through a supermarket veritably-stoned in my keanu-reeves-type "whoa" observations of how much food there must be pumping through the store, let alone the town/county/state/region/country/continent/hemisphere/world, and when i'm walking around during rush hour seeing all of the automobiles and trying to fathom how many gallons of gas must be used in all of these expensive cars chock full of things that are made in factories all over the world and whatnot, and like, you start to realize how EASY everything is to attain if you've got a nice arbitrary figure in a computer database or a rather nice collection of pieces of paper with pictures of dead guys on them; shit, it's truly laughable to think that you or me or anyone of our technically-meaningless-ilk have any sort of say in decisions that could affect this system around us.
we're heading to a veritably pre-destined fate, the only thing that has some level of variance is the details in exactly HOW we get there, or at what speed/pace... much like parity in sports, you gotta keep the two political parties going back and forth and seeimg to have dis/advantages at certain junctures (it's always about ratings, after all. you couldn't just go out and say that obama's gonna roll through the elections because of the current state of the social climate, you had to have an "OMFG OBAMA BLEW IT IN THIS DEBATE NOW ROMNEY'S AHEAD IN POLLS" monent or two in order to get people to tune in and watch the "coverage") i mean, really.... it's just a heaping helping of hooey, to use a phrase locally popularized by terry boers. there was an industrial revolution, semantically speaking, a couple'a/few hundred years ago.... who revolted? what did they want? what did they get?
they got everything. and while i'm not arguing about that, i will argue that when it comes down to it, you have no chance in the wake of the giant combine that is society, to use a term popularized in "one flew of the cuckoo's nest"
time to go listen to cuckoo by afx.
edit: added bonus, in the wake of the slow steady death of the great american huntsman, some people think that ADHD is basically the last gasp of the once-innate humanly urge to hunt and gather, which of course has been met head on by the pharmaceutical industry who decided to stick all of those multitaskers on speed and spaz 'em up into good sedentary office workers =D
_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
Les Grobstein's huge hog is proof that God has a sense of humor, isn't it?
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
